The media keep getting politics wrong – and the UK keeps paying the price
Share this post:
Simon Wren-Lewis, writing at Mainly Macro, is reminding us this week that the greatest political failures of our age were not simply caused by bad governments but by a media that prefers popularity to accuracy.
His analysis of the Covid Inquiry shows a familiar pattern: experts warned us of danger, the government ignored them, the system failed us, and the media helped create the conditions in which that failure became possible.
The astonishing part is that we have seen this pattern before.
Again and again, over more than a decade, newspapers and broadcasters have chosen what they thought the public wanted to hear rather than what the evidence showed to be true.
In doing so, they have misled the public, encouraged weak or dishonest politics, and contributed to national decisions that have damaged the UK for years.
The problem is not abstract; it is painfully real. When the media get the big stories wrong, the consequences are measured in lower wages, poorer public services, political instability… and in the case of Covid, tens of thousands of needless deaths.
And the reason is straightforward: when journalists prioritise what sounds popular over what is correct, politicians follow the headlines instead of the facts.
Wren-Lewis’s argument is worth expanding with some clear examples. They show a consistent failure in how the media treats expertise, and how that shapes political reality.
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
In the early 2010s, experts in economics were warning that austerity would cause long-term harm – not improvements – to public finances and public services.
They pointed out that when interest rates are at or near zero, governments should invest heavily in the health service, care, housing, and infrastructure because the cost of borrowing is minimal.
That is simple economics.
Yet most newspapers and broadcasters pushed the opposite argument.
They repeated slogans about “balancing the books” and compared government spending to a household budget, even though these comparisons are false.
The result was years of cuts that undermined social care, weakened the NHS, slowed economic growth and created the staff shortages the UK still suffers today.
Voters were misled because the media preferred a story about “tough choices” to the harder truth.
Brexit
Then came the Brexit debate, in which the media repeated the same pattern.
The overwhelming majority of experts said leaving the European Union would harm the economy.
These were researchers who study trade, business investment, and the value of the pound for a living.
Yet the media treated their knowledge as just one opinion among many.
Commentators who insisted Brexit would cause no damage – even though they could not produce credible evidence – were given equal time on television and radio, as though expertise and guesswork were of equal value.
This gave the public the impression that the truth was unclear, when in fact it was very clear indeed.
The result is visible today in higher prices, weaker investment and lower growth.
Once again, the public were encouraged to believe something comforting rather than something true.
Covid-19
The pandemic revealed this behaviour in its starkest form.
The Covid Inquiry has made clear that the UK government wasted the crucial weeks of early 2020, when it had time to prepare and possibly avoid the first national lockdown.
Expert warnings were sounded.
Other countries were already taking action.
But those warnings did not shape the news.
Newspapers owned by billionaire proprietors focused on the economic inconvenience of restrictions rather than the need to save lives.
Broadcasters gave airtime to people claiming we could ride out the virus and “take it on the chin”.
Boris Johnson, who openly joked that newspaper owners were his “real boss”, followed their lead.
When the government finally imposed a lockdown, the delay meant far more people died than needed to, and the restrictions had to remain in place for longer.
A delay of just one week cost more than 20,000 lives.
But because those deaths were the result of what didn’t happen – because people were not protected in time – the media treated them as less real than the social gatherings in Downing Street that eventually forced Johnson out.
Channel migrants
This pattern is not limited to older events; it is happening now. One of the clearest examples is the constant media focus on small boat crossings.
The facts are straightforward: the numbers arriving by this route are tiny compared to the UK’s overall population, and far lower han arrivals in several European countries.
The crisis in the asylum system has been caused largely by Home Office incompetence and by ministers who refused to process claims promptly.
But the newspapers that want to stir fear shout “invasion”, and broadcasters follow their lead.
Politicians then try to outdo each other with ever more performative policies – deportation schemes, floating barges, and pointless crackdowns – instead of fixing the broken processing system.
Most voters believe small boats are one of the country’s biggest problems because the media has told them so, day after day, even though the facts show otherwise.
This is how political culture decays.
Journalists talk endlessly about how policies “play” with the public rather than whether they work.
In doing so, they teach politicians that presentation matters more than results.
They avoid calling out lies directly, so politicians conclude that lying carries no cost.
They focus on the story of the day, not on long-term consequences, so governments learn that they can fail without being held accountable.
Wren-Lewis argues that the UK has suffered from a string of incompetent prime ministers, and it is hard to disagree.
But these politicians did not rise in a vacuum. They rose in a media environment that rewards showmanship over substance and outrage over expertise.
It is no surprise that when broadcasters choose political journalists – not health specialists, not scientists, not economists – to front their coverage of complex issues, the questions asked are about politics, not facts.
We heard far more about “protecting the economy” than about the simple maths of how a virus spreads.
We heard far more about how Brexit “cut through” than about what it would do to trade and investment.
We heard far more about how austerity played with the electorate than about the damage it would inflict on public services.
The result is a country where the public is poorly informed, politicians are let off the hook, and expert knowledge is treated as optional.
The Covid Inquiry has shown that this is not merely a democratic failure: it is a human tragedy.
When the media fail, the cost is paid in lives, livelihoods and the future of the country.
The question the UK faces is no longer whether the media get things wrong – the evidence for that is overwhelming.
The question is how much longer we can afford a system where truth is secondary to popularity, and where the most important decisions of our time are shaped by what sells rather than by what is right.
That is why sites like Vox Political and its forerunner Vox Political matter.
This Site has tried to do the opposite of what the big media organisations have chosen to do, aiming to tell readers what they need to know, not what focus groups or billionaire press owners think will “go down well”.
The record speaks for itself.
On Austerity, Vox Political warned that it would be ruinous long before the political class admitted it.
On Brexit, Vox Political showed the factual economic evidence even as the national broadcasters pretended the facts reflected just one opinion among others.
On Covid-19, Vox Political followed the science while ministers and their media cheerleaders tried to pretend it was possible to negotiate with the virus.
And on countless other issues, Vox Political has gone where the evidence leads, not just where the headlines point.
That is the purpose of proper journalism: to seek fact, to test claims, to expose failures, and to inform the public so they can make decisions based on reality rather than rhetoric.
This Site exists to do exactly that.
In an age when most political coverage chases drama, Vox Political sticks to facts.
When most commentary indulges in comforting myths, Vox Political explains what is actually happening.
And when those in power want the public to look the other way, Vox Political keeps our readers focused on what really matters.
It should not be unusual to offer political reporting, analysis and insight rooted in evidence rather than performance.
But it has become unusual – and that is why Vox Political is essential.
Share this post:
Unpaid carers’ overpayments will be reviewed after a decade of Tory failures
As a former carer, this strikes home to me.
Here’s the BBC:
“Thousands of unpaid carers will have their cases reassessed after an official review found they had been left with huge debts caused by systemic failures.
“Former charity boss Liz Sayce found confusing guidance on Carer’s Allowance – given to those providing 35 hours of unpaid care a week – had left thousands with fines and surprise bills, sometimes running into thousands of pounds.
“The Guardian newspaper uncovered hundreds of carers claiming Carer’s Allowance had been convicted of benefit fraud, while others claimed they were harassed for money by officials.
“Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said… “We inherited this mess from the previous government, but we’ve listened to carers, commissioned an independent review, and are now making good for those affected.””
This is an extraordinary, systemic failure that ran for a decade – and it reads, frankly, like a policy designed to look supportive of carers while quietly exploiting them to save Treasury cash.Are victimised unpaid carers finally about to get relief?
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
The key points from the Sayce review and the BBC story show that under previous, Tory, governments:
- The rules on Carers Allowance were unclear, leading people into “breaches” they had no realistic way to avoid.
- The DWP routinely failed to warn carers when they crossed the earnings limit, often for months or years.
- Overpayments accumulated in silence, then carers were hammered with massive debts.
- Courts and the DWP themselves were applying the law inconsistently because the guidance was “broadly drawn”.
- Carers were prosecuted for fraud even though the review explicitly found it was not wilful wrongdoing.
The new Labour government saying it will “reassess cases” and potentially cancel or repay debts is at least an acknowledgement of the injustice – something the Conservatives never conceded.
But the BBC notes that actual changes may not take effect for a year, meaning carers are still stranded in limbo.
So: there is a path to relief – but it is slow, bureaucratic, and still largely undefined.
Until the DWP publishes how reassessment will work, nothing concrete is guaranteed.
Given the evidence, were the Tories just trying to stop carers getting anything, in order to save money?
This is the uncomfortable conclusion lurking in the background – and the Sayce review practically leads us there.
The evidence suggests:
- The system was set up in a way that made accidental rule-breaches inevitable.
- The “cliff-edge” rule maximised the number of weeks that could be clawed back.
- ‘Averaging’ rules – that allowed carers to show average earnings over a period of time – existed in law, but were so vague that carers could easily be accused of breaking them.
- The DWP failed to warn people in real time when they exceeded the earnings limit.
- This allowed debts to balloon to truly punitive scales.
- Carers were prosecuted even where guidance itself was unclear.
Those characteristics are not random.
They are not “unfortunate consequences”.
They have a structural logic:
They increased the likelihood of overpayments, maximised the sums reclaimed, and minimised the number of people successfully claiming Carer’s Allowance without penalty.
This is entirely consistent with Austerity-era policy design, in which:
- complexity was a tool
- ambiguity was a deterrent
- punitive recovery regimes were built to reduce spending by shifting blame onto claimants
Was there an explicit Tory intention to “stop carers getting anything”? Probably not in so many words.
But was the system deliberately maintained in this shape because it saved money and fit their wider political narrative? Absolutely, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that interpretation.
If you take the Sayce report at face value, you end up with the same conclusion the Guardian investigations have found for years:
The Conservatives built and maintained a system that predictably set carers up to fail, and then punished them for failing.
And it must be stressed: the UK relies on unpaid carers to save the state billions of pounds per year. Treating them like this is not an oversight. It’s a strategy.
The political question now
Pat McFadden’s line – “we inherited this mess from the previous government” – is true.
But the Labour government has a choice now:
- Either genuinely fix the system and write off the debts in practice, not just in theory
- Or quietly replicate the Conservative approach with nicer language and a slower timetable
We will see which of those paths they choose, soon enough.
This minimum wage increase STILL isn’t enough
Share this post:
We all know the minimum wage is rising, after the Budget. But is it just gesture politics, or will it make a real difference?
Here’s the BBC:
“Millions of people are set to get a pay rise from April due to an increase in the minimum wage, the government has announced ahead of Wednesday’s Budget.
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
“The hourly rate for over-21s will rise by 50p to £12.71, with workers aged 18-20 seeing an 85p rise to £10.85, and under-18s and apprentices getting 45p more to £8 an hour.
“Chancellor Rachel Reeves said 2.7 million people will benefit from the increases, which will take effect from April next year.
“However, businesses have warned that further increases to the minimum wages could result in hiring freezes.
“The minimum wage increases are on top of a 6.7% rise for over-21s and a 16.3% rise for 18 to 20 year olds respectively last year, when there was also a rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions.”
Short answer: closer, but still not close enough.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Labour breaches manifesto promises by pandering to employers over unfair dismissal
Share this post:
It’s so disappointing when they’re unfaithful – isn’t it?
Labour has broken its manifesto commitment to offer protection against unfair dismissal from Day One of any employment, under pressure from employers.
It comes just two days after the current party of government broke another manifesto commitment – not to raise income taxes – by freezing the thresholds at which that tax is paid.
Here’s the BBC:
“Ministers now plan to introduce the right after six months instead, after business groups voiced concerns it would discourage firms from hiring.
“The government argued it was making the climbdown to stop its employment legislation being delayed in the House of Lords, where it has run into opposition.
“Other new day-one rights to sick pay and paternity leave will still go ahead, coming into effect in April 2026.
“The promise was a central pledge in Labour’s manifesto ahead of last year’s general election, and a key plank of its Employment Rights Bill.
“Labour pledged to create “basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal”.
“But asked if it was a breach of the Labour manifesto, Business Secretary Peter Kyle said: “No.”
“Instead, he argued the manifesto had pledged to “bring people together” and “that this would not be legislation that pits one side against another”.”
Labour’s decision to abandon day-one protection from unfair dismissal is plainly a breach of its manifesto, no matter how the government tries to spin it.
The original promise was unambiguous: the party pledged “basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”
Nothing in that wording offered any wiggle-room. There were no conditions, no caveats about parliamentary negotiations, and no suggestion that these rights would depend on agreements with employers. It was a central commitment, presented as a defining feature of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill.
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
The government has now rewritten that pledge by postponing unfair-dismissal protection to six months and dropping the legal probation period designed to provide balance for employers.
This is not a reinterpretation or a refinement; it is a reversal.
Peter Kyle’s claim that this does not constitute a breach because the manifesto also promised to “bring people together” is nothing more than a rhetorical distraction.
A general, aspirational line cannot retrospectively override a specific, concrete policy promise.
If that logic were accepted, no manifesto pledge would ever need to be honoured, because any of them could be set aside by appealing to vaguer sentiments elsewhere in the document.
The fact that Labour MPs, affiliated unions and even major donors are openly describing the move as a betrayal shows how flimsy Kyle’s argument really is.
This employment-rights breach sits alongside another, largely unacknowledged one that took place in the Budget of 26 November 2025.
Only two days before the unfair-dismissal U-turn, Rachel Reeves insisted that Labour would not break its manifesto promise not to raise taxes.
Yet the Budget freezes personal tax thresholds, which is a well-established form of stealth taxation.
When thresholds are frozen, wages rising with inflation push workers into higher tax bands and increase their effective tax burden.
The result is a tax rise in practice, even though the headline rates stay the same.
By confirming a multi-year extension of the threshold freeze, the Budget has imposed a substantial, predictable increase in income-tax receipts, meaning Labour has broken the spirit and the economic reality of its promise not to raise income tax, National Insurance or VAT.
Reeves’s claim that the manifesto remains intact does not survive contact with the facts contained in her own Budget.
Together, these two reversals expose a deeper pattern in the government’s approach.
Labour’s leadership appears far more willing to placate business groups, the House of Lords and the commentariat than to uphold promises made directly to working people.
In the case of the Employment Rights Bill, the House of Lords was not defeating the legislation but delaying it, which is a normal part of parliamentary scrutiny.
Governments with conviction push through their manifesto commitments against such resistance. Labour chose not to, and the justification offered is that employers and unions had brokered a compromise.
But if manifesto commitments can be diluted simply because external actors demand it, voters will rightly question whether any of Labour’s pledges are safe.
The party’s insistence that these decisions are acts of pragmatism masks a political calculation that is becoming increasingly clear.
The leadership seems to fear accusations of being “anti-business” more than accusations of dishonesty or betrayal.
At the same time, Reeves’s Budget has already increased the tax burden on ordinary workers while Labour simultaneously denies doing so.
The employment-rights U-turn therefore lands in a climate where trust is already being eroded – by lies.
Workers see Labour promising one thing and delivering another; unions see their warnings dismissed unless they align with the leadership’s preferred narrative; and employers see that political pressure will be rewarded with policy concessions.
What emerges is a government quick to retreat from policies that meaningfully shift power towards workers, but fully willing to impose a stealth tax rise that shifts financial pressure onto the very same people.
A party that campaigned on strengthening workers’ rights and supporting working families has, within a short span of time, broken its commitments on both fronts while insisting, unconvincingly, that nothing has changed.
Share this post:
Migration into the UK falls – but which story do you believe?
Share this post:
Net migration has fallen massively. It’s great news for the government! But it’s bad news for the UK.
Here’s The Guardian to give you the context:
“Net migration to the UK has fallen by more than two-thirds to 204,000 in a single year, the lowest annual figure since 2021, according to the latest official statistics.
“Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures show there was a 69% drop from 649,000 in the number of people immigrating minus the number of people emigrating, in the year to June 2025.
“Net migration peaked at a record 944,000 in the year to March 2023 as part of the “Boriswave” of foreign workers but has fallen sharply since then.
“A total of 36,273 people claiming asylum were living in hotels at the end of September, up 13% on the figure in June.
“Both Labour and the Tories are expected to try to claim credit for the drop in overall migration.
“Policies set in train by the Tories under Rishi Sunak’s government cut the number of work and student visas. Their policies have been further pursued by Starmer’s government.”
Please take a moment to complete the Vox Political Reader Survey.
Your answers are anonymous and will help shape future coverage.
Click here to take part.
The big question is: why has this happened – was it for the right reasons?
Is the UK going to be short-handed, in terms of employment?
Will people assume this is to do with the channel boat people?
Let’s dive in…
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
